Israel

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will consider imposing a ban on the exporting of weapons and components of weapons to the Israeli Government.

Alistair Burt: We do not believe that imposing a blanket arms embargo on Israel would be justified. The UK is firmly committed to Israel's security—and Israel continues to face many genuine security threats. Nor do we believe that an arms embargo would advance the middle east peace process. We already apply rigorously the Consolidated European Union and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, including with respect to Israel. and do not allow any arms exports which we assess would be contrary to those criteria.

Israel

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration the Government has given to banning UK companies from manufacturing components sold to Israel to make drones.

Alistair Burt: We do not believe that a ban on UK companies manufacturing components is necessary, given the stringent requirements of the criteria by which we assess all arms exports. These assessments take into consideration the remit of the end user and the specification of the final platform. We refuse licences for any arms exports to Israel which we assess would be inconsistent with the criteria or other relevant commitments.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the monitoring of the progress of projects funded by PMTC Bangladesh.

Alan Duncan: PMTC does not directly receive funding from DFID to implement or fund projects. PMTC is a member of a consortium led by Harewelle International and employs local staff that work for Harewelle International managed projects. Please refer to the answer given to PQ 128353 on 20 November 2012, Official Report, columns 475-6W, for an explanation of the assessments made on the Stimulating Household Improvements Resulting in Economic Empowerment programme, which is the funding window of the Economic Empowerment of the Poorest programme, managed by Harewelle International.

Overseas Aid

Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what criteria her Department uses to inform its decisions of when and how it ceases to provide aid.

Justine Greening: Decisions about aid including in relation to when and how it is stopped are taken on a case-by-case basis based on a range of factors including the need for aid and the likely effectiveness and value for money of UK aid.

Floods: Insurance

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of how insurance claims for flooding are treated.

Richard Benyon: The insurance industry has an important role to play in helping people recover from the distressing experience of their home or business being flooded.
	I understand that claim handling arrangements generally seem to be working well in communities affected by recent flooding. We will continue to keep this under review.
	Insurers tell us they have learned lessons from previous floods, with many providing 24 hour help lines as well as practical advice on the ground in communities affected.

Forests

Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he is taking to combat deforestation; and what assessment he has made of the final report by the Independent Panel on Forestry, published in July 2012.

David Heath: The Government published its Government Forestry Policy on 31 January 2013, Official Report, columns 56-58WS. This included our response to the Independent Panel on Forestry's final report. Copies are available in the Library of the House and on the DEFRA website. It acknowledges the importance of the panel's report and confirms that the Government shares its vision for the future of our forests. In the statement we confirmed that the Public Forest Estate will remain in public ownership. We also announced that a new body will be established to hold the estate in trust for the nation and manage it for the long-term benefit of people, the economy and the environment.
	We are committed to protecting and enhancing our existing woodland resource and also agree with the panel that there is scope to accelerate the rate of planting in order to increase further the amount of woodland cover in this country. Current planting rates exceed the loss of woodland.
	The Government's policy on when to convert woods and forests to open habitats in England was also confirmed, which includes strict criteria on when there are compelling reasons to permit deforestation for reasons of wildlife conservation. These criteria inform decisions about whether to grant an unconditional felling licence under the terms of the Forestry Act and any determination required by Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) regulations. Where deforestation is permitted, compensatory planting may be a requirement.

Genetically Modified Organisms

John Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding the opening of the EU market to GM foods.

David Heath: The Government is concerned that the EU control regime for GM crops and foods is deterring investment, innovation and growth. The EU has been authorising the import of GM commodities for food and animal feed use, albeit relatively slowly, but there is a significant problem with the time it takes to secure approval to market GM seeds for commercial cultivation. Only one GM crop has been cleared for planting in the last 14 years, which means that producers and consumers are being denied the potential benefits that GM cultivation could bring. The rest of the world is leaving Europe behind in adopting GM technology, so we are taking every opportunity to argue for the EU safety-based regime to function more effectively.
	The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I discussed this issue in my recent meeting with the Commissioner for health and consumer policy.

Stone: Theft

George Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will consider introducing methods of tackling thefts of Yorkshire stone similar to those now in place for metal thefts.

Jeremy Browne: I have been asked to reply 
	on behalf of the Home Department.
	The Government is delivering a comprehensive package of measures to crack down on metal thieves and punish rogue scrap metal dealers including providing funding for more focussed enforcement activity, seeking design solutions to deter thieves and making legislative changes. The Home Office monitors emerging crime issues but has no current plans to adopt a similar approach in relation to the theft of Yorkshire stone. With the election of police and crime commissioners, local police forces are able to allocate resources appropriately to respond to local crime priorities.

Kidneys: Diseases

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what assessment he has made of the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services' recommendation to nationally commission Eculizumab for the treatment of atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  when he expects the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to (a) begin and (b) complete its appraisal of Eculizumab for the treatment of atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome.

Norman Lamb: Ministers accepted the view of the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services on the clinical effectiveness of eculizumab for the treatment of atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS) but wanted further advice on its suitability for direct commissioning taking account of its cost effectiveness and affordability against the overall national health service financial position.
	The Department has asked the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (NICE) to develop guidance on the use of eculizumab for aHUS as the first topic to be evaluated through its highly specialised technologies programme. NICE will produce a timetable for the development of its guidance.

NHS: Private Sector

Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how many private health companies have lost contracts with the NHS following serious failings in each year since 2007;
	(2)  what steps he has taken to ensure that public health is prioritised over profit by private companies providing contracts for the NHS.

Anna Soubry: The Department does not collect the information requested centrally because it is for local commissioners to manage contracts for local services as they are best placed to do so.
	Commissioners must act with a view to securing continuous improvements in the quality of services provided and outcomes they are seeking to achieve for their populations. They are responsible for specifying the quality of services in their contracts and for holding providers to account for delivering this. Increasingly services will be subject to a national or local tariff, and private providers will compete on the quality and outcomes provided by their services not price.

South London Healthcare NHS Trust

Heidi Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to his oral statement of 31 January 2013, what evidence the NHS Medical Director, Sir Bruce Keogh, used in arriving at his conclusion that the smaller accident and emergency at University Hospital Lewisham would continue to see up to 75 per cent of current patients; and if he will publish that evidence.

Anna Soubry: The draft report by the Trust Special Administrator (TSA) proposed that the accident and emergency (A&E) department at Lewisham hospital should be downgraded to a non-admitting Urgent Care Centre.
	The draft report estimated that, around 77% of Lewisham hospital's current A&E activity would remain at that site. The figures are based on activity data supplied to the TSA by Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust. In light of consultation, the TSA revised this figure to “at least 50%”.
	Sir Bruce Keogh advised the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), that Lewisham hospital should retain an admitting A&E service with 24 hour, seven-day senior emergency medical cover. His estimate that the site could manage nearer to 75% of activity with these changes is based on the Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust's admissions data and, flowing from this, that the A&E would have the clinical capacity to safely treat this number of patients.
	The TSA's original analysis is in his draft report which is available at:
	www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/10/tsa-draftreport/
	Sir Bruce's advice is available at:
	www.dh.gov.uk/health/2013/01/slht-decision/
	Both the TSA analysis and Sir Bruce's advice can only be estimates based on the best available information at the time. Managing activity levels across the different sites will need to be a key part of implementation planning involving clinical commissioning groups, national health service providers and the NHS Trust Development Authority.

Energy

Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many (a) local authorities and (b) third sector organisations in each (i) nation of the UK and (ii) region of England submitted applications for Government funding for local energy schemes to help reduce fuel poverty, boost energy efficiency and encourage collective switching; and how many such applications were (A) successful and (B) not successful.

Gregory Barker: There were three strands of funding available under the DECC local authority competition 2012-13. Authorities could apply for support from one, two or all three funding pots; either as single bidders or as part of consortia. The Cheaper Energy Together Fund was also open to third sector organisations.
	Only local authorities in England were eligible to apply for support from the fuel poverty and Green Deal Pioneer Places funds. The ‘Cheaper Energy Together’ collective switching scheme was open to local authorities and third sector organisations in Great Britain.
	The following tables give a breakdown of applications by region and country.
	
		
			 Local authority applications 
			 Region Total number of local authority applications(1) Applications supported Applications not supported 
			 England    
			 East Midlands 22 7 15 
			 East of England 19 8 11 
			 Greater London 24 13 11 
			 North East 7 6 1 
			 North West 28 15 13 
			 South East 39 22 17 
			 South West 12 10 2 
			 West Midlands 24 12 12 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 14 10 4 
			     
			 Scotland 1 0 1 
			     
			 Wales 6 0 6 
		
	
	
		
			 Total local authority applications 196 (2)103 93 
			 (1 )64 applications involved consortia of local authorities. (2 )45 supported projects involve consortia, therefore funding will be delivered in 293 local authority areas. 
		
	
	
		
			 Third sector organisation applications 
			 Region Total number of third sector organisation applications Applications supported Applications not supported 
			 East of England 1 0 1 
			 East Midlands 2 1 0 
			 Greater London 4 0 4 
			 North East 2 1 1 
			 North West 1 0 1 
			 Scotland 2 1 1 
			 South East 6 0 6 
			 South West 4 3 1 
			 Wales 5 0 5 
			 West Midlands 3 0 3 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 2 2 0 
			 National 5 0 5 
			 Total 37 8 28

Nuclear Power

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what recent estimate he has made of the future use of nuclear power on national energy supplies.

John Hayes: New nuclear power, alongside other forms of electricity generation such as renewables and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, is a key part of our future low carbon energy mix, keeping us on a cost-effective pathway to meet our energy security and decarbonisation objectives.
	While we welcome plans set out by industry to develop approximately 16 GW of new nuclear capacity. Government, do not have technology specific targets. By ensuring a diverse energy mix we will ensure a secure and sustainable low carbon energy future.

Africa

Gemma Doyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent in (a) Mali, (b) Niger, (c) Nigeria, (d) Algeria, (e) Mauritania, (f) Burkina Faso, (g) Chad, (h) Libya, (i) Sudan, (j) South Sudan, (k) Ethiopia, (l) Somalia, (m) Kenya and (n) Western Sahara in 2011-12.

Andrew Murrison: holding answer 1 February 2013
	During 2011-12 the Ministry of Defence conducted Defence Engagement, including liaison and the provision of training, in Nigeria; Algeria; Libya; Sudan; South Sudan; Ethiopia; Somalia and Kenya. The cost to the Defence budget and to tri-departmental conflict pool funds of these activities for financial year 2011-12 is provided in the following table:
	
		
			 Nigeria 2,302,000 
			 Algeria 18,000 
			 Libya(1) 1,523,000 
			 Sudan 1,638,000 
			 South Sudan 629,000 
			 Ethiopia 1,201,000 
			 Somalia 246,000 
			 Kenya(2) 323,000 
			  £ 
			 (1) The figure provided for Libya excludes costs associated with Operation Ellamy which were met from the Treasury Reserve. (2) The figure provided for Kenya excludes conflict pool funding for the British Peace Support Team (East Africa) who conduct training activity throughout the East Africa region including Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya, at a total annual cost of £4.5 million. Note: 1. The figures are rounded to the nearest £1,000, and exclude counter-terrorism related activity, due to its sensitive nature, and the costs of maintaining Defence attachés and advisers. 2. In addition, the figures provided do not take into account the costs of training by UK forces, principally the extensive training which takes place routinely in Kenya. Other miscellaneous expenditure, for example costs associated with senior visits or transit flights, is not collated centrally.

Mali

Tobias Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expected duration is of Operation Newcombe; and how many troops he anticipates will be involved.

Andrew Robathan: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), on 29 January 2013, Official Report, column 785, to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), in which he outlined the current situation regarding Op Newcombe.
	In addition, the EU Training Mission (Mali) has a proposed mandate of 15 months from the mission launch. The earliest this is expected is 12 February 2013, but no decisions have been taken on the duration of any British contribution.
	With regards to the number of troops involved in Op Newcombe, I refer the hon. Member to the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the deployment of personnel to Mali on 29 January 2013, Official Report, column 781.
	In addition, there are currently around 30 people in France supporting the CI7 deployment.

Mali

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he first received a request from the French government for military support in operations in Mali.

Andrew Robathan: holding answer 5 February 2013
	The Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), first received a request from the French Government for military support to operations in Mali on 12 January 2013.

Copyright

Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment the Intellectual Property Office has made of the prevalence of activity that constitutes teaching and illustration but which is not covered by existing regulations governing non-commercial educational purposes.

Jo Swinson: Details of the planned changes with respect to educational establishments can be found in the consultation response 'Modernising Copyright: A modern, robust and flexible framework' as well as the accompanying impact assessment. Examples of activities commonplace in schools that will be permitted under the new provisions include the use of interactive whiteboards and similar technology and the viewing of publicly accessible websites in classrooms. The changes will also allow the use of all types of media in teaching and education and facilitate the growing demand for distance learning.

Copyright

Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he intends to bring forward legislative proposals to make copyright regulations simpler for people to understand.

Jo Swinson: The Government has announced it will implement a non-statutory scheme to issue ‘copyright notices’ that clarify copyright law. Details are outlined on pp. 49-52 of ‘Modernising Copyright: A modern, robust and flexible Framework’, the Government's response to consultation published in December 2012, which is available from:
	http://www.ipo.gov.uk/response-2011-copyright-final.pdf

Exports

Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps UK Trade and Investment has taken to work with other agencies to maximise export opportunities.

Matthew Hancock: UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) works with a wide range of organisations to maximise export opportunities.
	UKTI's regional trade teams are managed by a range of organisations, particularly Chambers of Commerce and much UKTI activity involving missions and overseas exhibitions is delivered in conjunction with national sector trade associations. UKTI has built on leveraging partnerships with its private sector partners and a range of other stakeholders to raise awareness of its services, using key intermediaries such as banks, accountants and lawyers. Close relationships are maintained with local enterprise partnerships and other regional stakeholders.

Green Investment Bank

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether he has plans to allow the Green Investment Bank to borrow.

Michael Fallon: The Government is fully committed to providing the UK Green Investment Bank (UK GIB) with the funding it needs to be an enduring and effective financial institution. With £3 billion to 2015, the bank is being amply funded so that it will not need to borrow in the short to medium term.
	As set out during second reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill in the House of Lords, the focus of the Chairman of UK GIB, Lord Smith, is on building a well run organisation with a good track record worthy of the injection of more capital or borrowing money in capital markets.

Broadband: South West

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the potential benefits of 4G mobile broadband to Devon and Somerset.

Edward Vaizey: I have not made any assessment of the benefits of 4G to specific counties in the UK. I understand that Ofcom, who are conducting the 4G auction, have made an assessment of the economic value of 4G to consumers across the UK as a whole. They estimate this to be at least £20 billion over the next 10 years.

Broadband: South West

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the potential of 4G broadband roll-out to complement connecting Devon and Somerset's plans for superfast broadband.

Edward Vaizey: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is monitoring market developments in 4G in the light of the current spectrum auctions and is considering the potential of 4G services to complement fixed line broadband services, along with other technology options.

Mayors: Tower Hamlets

Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the case for new regulation following the report by Ofcom into the political broadcasts of the Mayor of Tower Hamlets.

Edward Vaizey: On 21 January Ofcom announced that it had found five licensees in serious breach of the prohibition on political advertising and was taking appropriate action. Ofcom is independent of Government and it is up to them to warn or fine licensees or revoke licences as appropriate for breaches of their broadcast code. I have no plans to introduce further regulation in the area of political advertising.

Capita

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she last met the Chief Executive of Capita.

James Brokenshire: Home Office Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of partners, as well as organisations and individuals in the public and private sectors, as part of the process of policy development and delivery. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Governments practice to provide details of all such meetings.

Dangerous Driving

Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many people have been given multiple custodial sentences for dangerous driving while (a) under the influence of alcohol and (b) not under the influence of alcohol since 2000;
	(2)  how many people with a previous conviction for dangerous driving while (a) under the influence of alcohol and (b) not under the influence of alcohol have been later charged with dangerous driving while (i) under the influence and (ii) not under the influence of alcohol in each of the last 10 years;
	(3)  how many people who have previously served a custodial sentence for dangerous driving while (a) under the influence of alcohol and (b) not under the influence of alcohol have been charged for the same offence within 10 years in each of the last 10 years.

Jeremy Wright: I have been asked to reply 
	on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.
	PQ 139816
	(a) 1,872 offenders have been given multiple custodial sentences for dangerous driving while under the influence of alcohol since 2000.
	(b) 2,870 offenders have been given multiple custodial sentences for dangerous driving while not under the influence of alcohol since 2000
	PO 139818
	Table 1A shows the number of offenders with a previous conviction for dangerous driving under the influence of alcohol who have been later convicted for dangerous driving while under the influence of alcohol and not under the influence of alcohol in each year, 12 months ending June 2002 to 12 months ending June 2012, England and Wales.
	
		
			 Table 1A : Number of offenders with a previous conviction for dangerous driving under the influence of alcohol who have been later convicted for dangerous driving while under the influence of alcohol and not under the influence of alcohol in each year, 12 months ending June 2002 to 12 months ending June 2012, England and Wales 
			 12 months ending June Under the influence of alcohol Not under the influence of alcohol 
			 2002 12,211 1,314 
			 2003 14,472 1,560 
			 2004 15,964 1,598 
			 2005 16,647 1,516 
			 2006 16,755 1,410 
			 2007 16,864 1,443 
			 2008 16,923 1,364 
			 2009 15,646 1,238 
			 2010 14,425 1,152 
			 2011 13,036 1,024 
			 2012 12,871 1,045 
			 Source: Ministry of Justice 
		
	
	Table 1B shows the number of offenders with a previous conviction for dangerous driving ‘not’ under the influence of alcohol who have been later convicted for dangerous driving while under the influence of alcohol and not under the influence of alcohol in each year, 12 months ending June 2002 to 12 months ending June 2012, England and Wales.
	
		
			 Table 1B: Number of offenders with a previous conviction for dangerous driving not under the influence of alcohol who have been later convicted for dangerous driving while under the influence and not under the influence in each year, 12 months ending June 2002 to 12 months ending June 2012, England and Wales, England and Wales 
			 12 months ending June Under the influence of alcohol Not under the influence of alcohol 
			 2002 2,745 1,791 
			 2003 3,111 1,970 
			 2004 3,289 1,934 
			 2005 3,199 1,778 
			 2006 3,193 1,559 
			 2007 3,014 1,551 
			 2008 2,986 1,442 
			 2009 2,715 1,257 
			 2010 2,625 1,049 
			 2011 2,331 959 
		
	
	
		
			 2012 2,326 1,035 
			 Source: Ministry of Justice 
		
	
	PO 139820
	Table 2: Number of offenders who previously served a custodial sentence for dangerous driving while under the influence of alcohol and not under the influence of alcohol who have been charged for the same offence in each year, 12 months ending June 2002 to 12 months ending June 2012, England and Wales.
	
		
			 Table 2: Number of offenders who previously served a custodial sentence for dangerous driving while under the influence of alcohol and not under the influence of alcohol who have been charged for the same offence in each year, 12 months ending June 2002 to 12 months ending June 2012, England and Wales. 
			 12 months ending June Under the influence of alcohol Not under the influence of alcohol 
			 2002 2,657 1,252 
			 2003 3,067 1,408 
			 2004 3,130 1,432 
			 2005 3,077 1,271 
			 2006 2,854 1,122 
			 2007 2,548 1,060 
			 2008 2,411 983 
			 2009 2,138 835 
			 2010 1,910 719 
			 2011 1,709 622 
			 2012 1,599 685 
			 Source: Ministry of Justice 
		
	
	The Police National Computer (PNC) came into existence in 2000 and information prior to this is not considered reliable so data before July 2001 is not available. The figures have been drawn from the police's administrative IT system, (PNC) which, as with any large scale recording system, is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the police.
	Drink driving offences presented in the tables include the following offences:
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 1(1). As amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 S.l and CJA 1993 S.67 Causing death by dangerous driving.
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sect 3A as added by the RTA 1991 S.3 and amended by CJA 1993 S.67. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs
	Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving; Road Traffic Act 1988 S.2B as added by Road Safety Act S20
	Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers; Road Traffic Act 1988 S.3ZB as added by Road Safety Act S.21
	Road Traffic Act 1988.S.22A as added to by the Road Traffic Act 1991 Sec 6 Causing danger by causing anything to be on a road, interfering with a vehicle or traffic equipment.
	Offences against the Person Act 1861 Sec. 35 Causing bodily harm by furious driving
	Theft Act 1968 S.12A as added by the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992 S. 1 - Aggravated taking where owing to the driving of the vehicle an accident occurs causing the death of any person
	Theft act 1968 s. 12a - aggravated taking where : a) the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place, or b) owing to the driving of the vehicle an accident occurred causing injury to any person or damage to any property other than the v
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec.2 As amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991. Dangerous Driving.
	Driving or attempting to drive after consuming alcohol or drugs
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 4(1) Driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs (impairment).
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec.5 (1) (a) Driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle while having a breath, blood or urine alcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit.
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 7(6) Driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle and failing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen for a laboratory test or two specimens for analysis of breath.
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 4(2) In charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs (impairment).
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 5(1) ( b ) In charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle while having a breath, blood or urine alcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit,
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 7(6) In charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle and failing without reasonable excuse to provide a for a specimen for a laboratory test or two specimens for analysis of breath.
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 6(4) Failing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen of breath for a preliminary test.
	Failing to allow specimen of blood to be subjected to laboratory test. Road Traffic Act 1998
	Driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs (impairment) - drink. Road Traffic Act 1988 S.4(2)
	Driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs (impairment) - drugs. Road Traffic Act 1988 S.4(l)
	Being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst unfit to drive through drink or drugs, (impairment) - drink. Road Traffic Act 1988 S.4(2)
	Being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst unfit to drive through drink or drugs (impairment) - drugs. Road Traffic Act 1988 S.4(2)
	Careless Driving (Non Standard List)
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 3 Careless driving - without due care and attention.
	Failure to comply with an order to stop a moving vehicle, Police Reform Act 2002.
	Use of hand held mobile phone while driving. Road Vehicles Regulations 1986.
	Causing the use of a mobile phone while driving a motor vehicle. Road Vehicles Regulations 1986.
	Using a mobile phone while supervising the holder of a provisional driving licence to drive a motor vehicle on the road. Road Vehicles Regulations 1986
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 12(1) Racing on highway.

Detention Centres: Children

Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children were detained for immigration purposes in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12.

Mark Harper: The Home Office publishes monthly, quarterly and annual statistics on the number of children detained in the UK within Immigration Statistics. The data on children entering detention by quarter are readily available in the latest release, Immigration Statistics: July-September 2012, table dt.01.q from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Science, research and statistics web pages at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/migration/migration-statistics1/
	Figures on people held are those detained in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers and exclude those in police cells, Prison Service establishments, short term holding rooms at ports and airports (for less than 24 hours), and those recorded as detained under both criminal and immigration powers and their dependants.
	Data for October-December 2012 and annual figures for 2012 will be released as part of the regular Home Office publication scheme on 28 February 2013.

Government Procurement Card

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the mean average spend using a Government Procurement Card was per member of staff in (a) her Department and (b) each of its arm's length bodies in (i) 2011 and (ii) 2012.

James Brokenshire: The information requested on Government Procurement Card spend for the Home Department, and its arm's length bodies can be found in the following table.
	
		
			  2011 GPC Spend per member of staff (£) 2012 GPC Spend per member of staff (£) 
			 Home Office and its agencies 127 102 
			 NPIA 924 527 
			 IPCC 256 219 
			 SIA n/a 12 
			 OISC 306 357 
			 ISA 67 102 
			 SOCA n/a 2 
			 DBS n/a n/a 
			 Note: SIA and SOCA did not have GPC cards in 2011, and DBS was not established until 1 December 2012.

Libya

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps her Department is taking to assist the Libyan government to uncover the individuals who benefitted financially from the Gaddafi regime through monitoring their assets in the UK.

Jeremy Browne: Financial sanctions were introduced against institutions and individuals associated with the former Gaddafi regime in Libya in early 2011. While these were modified later that year, an asset freeze remains in force against 39 individuals and 21 entities, including the Libyan Investment Authority. A full list of the persons subject to the Libyan asset freeze is available on the HM Treasury website at:
	http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/fin_sanctions_libya.htm
	The Treasury issued a notification of the sanctions on the HM Treasury financial sanctions web pages. In addition, an e-mail was sent to all of its subscribers; this included but was not limited to financial institutions who froze relevant assets. Assets can only be unfrozen with the HM Treasury's permission.
	On 26 September 2012 the Prime Minister announced at the UN General Assembly that the UK would create a new cross-Government Task Force to return assets stolen by members of the former regimes of the Arab Spring countries, including Libya, and hidden in the United Kingdom. The Task Force is now operational and providing support to countries, including Libya, seeking to recover their assets.

Overtime

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the (a) average cost per member of staff and (b) total cost was of overtime payments in (i) her Department and (ii) each of its arm's length bodies in (A) 2010-11, (B) 2011-12 and (C) 2012-13 to date.

James Brokenshire: The following tables set out the information requested for the Home Office and its executive agencies and its non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs). For the NDPBs information prior to March 2011 is not available and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.
	The figures for 2012-13 year to date are high compared to the previous year. This is due to increased levels of overtime required as a result of the Queen’s jubilee and the Olympic games.
	The information provided is for staff at Grade 6 and below. Senior civil servants are not entitled to overtime payments.
	
		
			 NDPB average staff overtime costs 
			 (£) 
			  (A) March 2011 (B) 2011-12 (C) 2012-13 to date 
			 EHRC 15.06 61.70 7.79 
			 ISA (until November 2012) 479.63 140.09 270.68 
			 DBS (from December 2012) — — 30.45 
			 IPCC 49.50 438.36 417.74 
			 NPIA 29.58 444.50 524.33 
			 OISC 2.68 0 0 
			 SIA 127.37 67.14 152.85 
			 SOCA 305.55 3,612.18 2,833.85 
			 Notes: 1. Extract dates: Last calendar day of each month. 2. Periods covered: Data are given by financial year. For 2010-11 we only hold data for March 2011. Data for 2011-12 covers the period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. Data for 2012-13 to date covers the period 1 April 2012 to 31 December 2012. 3. Organisational coverage: Figures are provided for each individual NDPB. Please note that the ISA ceased to exist at the start of December 2012, therefore their 2012-13 figures only cover the period 1 April 2012 to 30 November 2012, At the start of December 2012 the ISA merged with the Criminal Records Bureau to form the DBS. Therefore DBS figures for 2012-13 only cover the period 1 to 31 December 2012. Since 4 September 2012 responsibility for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (a non-departmental public body), formerly within the Home Office, moved to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 4. Employee coverage: Average costs are calculated based on the full-time equivalent (FTE) headcount of payroll employees only (as supplied for the Workforce Management Information returns) as at 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012 and 31 December 2012 (for ISA 30 November 2012 was used instead of 31 December 2012). 5. Transparency agenda considerations: Figures provided are in line with those published in the Workforce Management Information returns on the Home Office website on a monthly basis. 6. Calculations: Average cost of overtime per member of staff has been calculated by taking the total cost of overtime payments for the period, and dividing by the average number of staff (full-time equivalent) in the Department within the period. E.g. Average FTE for 2011-12: (FTE at 31 March 2011 + FTE at 31 March 2012). Figures for March 2011 are based on the FTE at 31 March 2011 only. Source: Collated from submissions made by each non-departmental public body (NDPB) for inclusion in the Home Office's Workforce Management Information monthly return to Cabinet Office. 
		
	
	
		
			 NDPB total overtime costs 
			 (£) 
			  (A) March 2011 (B) 2011-12 (C) 2012-13 to date 
			 EHRC 6,242.00 23,487.46 2,158.00 
			 ISA (until November 2012) 130,075.00 36,760.84 68,956.31 
			 DBS (from December 2012) n/a n/a 21,946.16 
			 IPCC 20,916.84 175,473.02 157,838.64 
			 NPIA 43,425.04 613,336.26 353,849.26 
			 OISC 153.00  0 
			 SIA 22,442.50 12,029.52 26,633.61 
		
	
	
		
			 SOCA 1,145,399.00 13,204,673.00 10,323,422.00 
			 Notes: 1. Extract dates: Last calendar day of each month. 2. Periods covered: Data are given by financial year. For 2010-11 we only hold data for March 2011. Data for 2011-12 covers the period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. Data for 2012-13 to date covers the period 1 April 2012 to 31 December 2012. 3. Organisational coverage: Figures are provided for each individual NDPB. Please note that the ISA ceased to exist at the start of December 2012, therefore their 2012-13 figures only cover the period 1 April 2012 to 30 November 2012. At the start of December 2012 the ISA merged with the Criminal Records Bureau to form the DBS. Therefore DBS figures for 2012-13 only cover the period 1 to 31 December 2012. 4. Employee coverage: Overtime costs are for payroll employees only (as supplied for the Workforce Management Information returns). 5. Transparency agenda considerations: Figures provided are in line with those published in the Workforce Management Information returns on the Home Office website on a monthly basis. Source: Collated from submissions made by each non-departmental public body (NDPB) for inclusion in the Home Office's Workforce Management Information monthly return to Cabinet Office. 
		
	
	
		
			 Home Department 
			 (£) 
			  (a) Average cost per member of staff (b) Total cost of overtime payments 
			 (A) 2010-11 257.27 7,251,462.27 
			 (B) 2011-12 213.21 5,920,707.80 
			 (C) 2012-13 year to date 375.75 10,101,874.50 
			 Notes: 1. Extract date(s): 1 April 2010, 1 April 2011, 1 April 2012, 1 January 2013 2. Period(s) covered: Data for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12 covers the period 1 April to 31 March. A year to date figure is given for 2012-13 and covers the period 1 April 2012 to 31 December 2012. 3. Organisational coverage: Figures include Home Office Headquarters (including Border Force and Government Equalities Office) and the Executive Agencies. For the period up to November 2012 this included the UK Border Agency, Identity and Passport Service, National Fraud Authority and Criminal Records Bureau. On the 3 December 2012 the Criminal Records Bureau left the Home Office to form part of the Disclosure and Barring Service and therefore they have been excluded from data in December 2012. Since 4 September 2012 responsibility for the Government Equalities Office (a unit within the Department), formerly within the Home Office, moved to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 4. Employee coverage: Average costs are calculated based on the full-time equivalent (FTE) headcount of all civil servants and non civil servants who were current members of staff as at 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012 and 31 December 2012. 5. Calculation(s): Average cost of overtime per member of staff has been calculated by taking the total cost of overtime payments for the period, and dividing by the average number of staff (full-time equivalent) in the Department within the period. E.g. Average FTE for 2010-11: (FTE at 31 March 2010+FTE at 31 March 2011-12. Source(s): Employee information from Data View—the Home Office's single source of Office for National Statistics compliant monthly snapshot corporate human resources data. Data on overtime pay taken from monthly payroll information.

Housing Benefit

Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people will no longer be excluded from the housing benefit cap due to the change in retirement age.

Steve Webb: The equalisation of women's state pension age with men's, the legislated rise in state pension age to 66, and the announced rise to age 67 were factored into the updated Benefit Cap Impact Assessment which was published on 16 July 2012 and the updated Equality Impact Assessment which was published on 23 July 2012.
	The Impact Assessment can be accessed at:
	http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/benefit-cap-wr2011-ia.pdf
	and the Equality Impact Assessment at:
	http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-benefit-cap-wr2011.pdf
	These changes in state pension age will not lead to the benefit cap affecting anyone who has reached state pension age on its introduction in April 2013.

Personal Independence Payment

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the requirement that individuals should be able to perform tasks reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a timely manner in terms of those who will undertake mobility disability assessments has been removed from the draft Personal Independence Payments scheme.

Esther McVey: We have always been clear that the assessment for Personal Independence Payment should not just consider whether an individual can complete an activity, but the manner in which they do so. This has always been a key principle of the assessment and will remain so.
	Originally we had intended to include this in the guidance; however, recognising the strength of feeling on this important safeguard, the Government has agreed to include it in regulations. We will lay an amending regulation once the main PIP entitlement regulations are made by Parliament, ensuring that the change is included before the PIP regulations come into force from 8 April.

Personal Independence Payment

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
	(1)  for what specific medical reason the maximum walking distance has been reduced from 50 to 20 metres for those who will apply for the mobility component of the draft Personal Independence Payments scheme;
	(2)  what assessment his Department has made of the consequences for individuals who can walk without difficulty for more than 20 metres but less than 50 metres in terms of the mobility component of the draft Personal Independence Payments scheme.

Esther McVey: Under the 'Moving Around' activity, it has always been the policy intent that individuals who are unable to walk more than 50 metres should be entitled to some rate of the Mobility component. Within this group we wanted to ensure that the enhanced rate was focused on those who face the greatest barriers to mobility, with the remainder receiving the standard rate.
	In the second draft of the assessment criteria we intended to differentiate within the group of people who are unable to walk more than 50 metres by considering the types of aids that individuals used. However, it was clear that we did not succeed; the descriptors were unclear and resulted in misconceptions about how the activity would work. This was apparent from the responses we received to our consultation, which indicated that most people believed that only those people who used a wheelchair could receive the enhanced rate, which has never been our intention.
	Therefore, we needed to change the criteria to make them clearer and easier to apply. We did so by differentiating within the eligible group by considering the distances that individuals can walk. We did this by introducing a 20 metre measure linked to the enhanced rate, ensuring it is focused on those who have the most limited mobility. We feel is much clearer and achieves the original policy intent. By taking this approach, individuals who cannot walk 20 metres can be certain they will receive the enhanced rate, regardless of whether they need an aid or appliance. I must also stress that this must be looked at in context of whether individuals can complete the activities safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in a reasonable time period.
	Our analysis of the second and final drafts of the assessment criteria shows that the projected number of people who will score 12 points under the ‘Moving Around' activity will remain broadly the same, despite an overall component caseload reduction. This indicates that the changes made to this activity have not tightened the eligibility criteria.

Social Security Benefits: Uprating

Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
	(1)  how many people in the (a) support group and (b) work-related activity group will see a reduction in their benefit as a result of the Welfare Benefits Up-Rating Bill in (i) 2014-15 and (ii) 2015-16;
	(2)  what estimate he has made of the average (a) monthly and (b) annual reduction in entitlement of a claimant in the (i) support group and (ii) work-related activity group as a result of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill in 2015-16.

Steve Webb: The Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill will not lead to a reduction in benefits since those benefits within the scope of the Bill will be increased by 1% in 2014-15 and 2015-16. All members of the Employment and Support Allowance Support Group and Work-Related Activity Groups will be affected by the Bill.
	The average changes to entitlement for the Work Related Activity Group and the Support Group, compared to up-rating by the Consumer Prices Index (consistent with the Impact Assessment published alongside the Bill) are as follows:
	
		
			 £ 
			  Monthly change Annual change 
			 WRAG -17 -210 
			 SG -12 -140 
			 Note: Monthly figures are presented to the nearest £1 and yearly figures to the nearest £10. 
		
	
	Many claimants will not be on ESA for a year—for instance more than half of current new ESA claims leave the benefit within a year.

Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education

Henry Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether male-targeted education on the consequences of rape is included in (a) the National Curriculum and (b) personal, social and health education.

Elizabeth Truss: All maintained secondary schools are required to provide sex education as part of the basic curriculum; and academies are free to do so as part of the requirement on them to teach a broad and balanced curriculum.
	When delivering sex education, all schools must have regard to the Government's guidance on sex and relationships education. The guidance encourages teachers to help pupils develop the self-esteem to value themselves and others; and requires that pupils be taught how the law applies to sexual relationships.
	The guidance advises teachers to plan a variety of activities which will help to engage boys as well as girls and states that programmes should focus on boys as much as girls.
	The non-statutory curriculum for personal, social and health and economic education, includes sexual exploitation among the areas to be covered. Schools are free to design their PSHE education according to the needs of their pupils.

School Meals

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 
	(1)  whether he has assessed the effect of nutrition on learning and information uptake in schools;
	(2)  what recent steps he has taken to improve the nutritional content of school food.

Elizabeth Truss: The Department has not undertaken its own assessment but is aware of other research covering the impact of good nutrition on education.
	The current school food standards have been fully in place since September 2009. Research published by the School Food Trust shows that whilst the nutritional content of school lunches has improved since then, there is also room for further improvement in all schools.
	The Government wants all pupils to have the opportunity to select a healthy, balanced school lunch. The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has appointed Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent as independent reviewers to examine school food across the country, in order to produce an action plan for schools. The reviewers are expected to present their findings shortly.

Students: Vetting

Neil Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what publications his Department issues on the need for Criminal Records Bureau checks for all adults in families who host foreign exchange students; whether schools are expected to carry out such checks; and if he will provide guidance on that matter from his Department.

Elizabeth Truss: The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) provides criminal records checks: it has replaced the former Criminal Records Bureau.
	Schools or FE colleges will generally not have to carry out DBS checks when arranging (for example on a school exchange) for a child to stay in England or Wales with a “host family” (private fostering) for under 28 days. There will be no duty to do a barred list check on such short term foster carers so long as the child's parents approve the choice of carers, and carers are unpaid volunteers; although they can carry out criminal records and barred list checks on the carers if they wish to do so. A barred person would be committing an offence if they provided foster care.
	The above exemption for schools from the new duty to check those providing overnight care was in publications issued in 2009 and 2010. The publications are the response to “Drawing the line” (December 2009) and the Vetting and Barring Scheme guidance (March 2010). We intend to consult soon on an update to “Safeguarding Children and Safer Recruitment in Education” which will cover this area.

Travel and Subsistence Payments

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 
	(1)  how many senior officials of his Department's arm's-length bodies are paid on the basis that they are exempt from personally meeting any tax liability in respect of travel and subsistence payments for attending meetings at the offices of the arm's-length body;
	(2)  how many senior officials in his Department's arm's-length bodies (a) have and (b) have had during 2012-13 terms of employment that specify that their main place of employment is their home address and that they are entitled to claim travel and subsistence expenses for visiting the offices of the arm's-length body;
	(3)  how many chairs in his Department's arm's-length bodies are paid on the basis that they are exempt from personally meeting any tax liability in respect of travel and subsistence payments for attending meetings at the offices of the arm's-length body.

Elizabeth Truss: The Department has two arm's length bodies.
	The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) has 60 offices across England and senior staff cover services nationally. There are three senior staff who are home workers. All CAFCASS staff can claim travel and subsistence in accordance with the organisations Expense Reimbursement Policy. CAFCASS have no chairs or senior officials paid on the basis that they are personally exempt from tax liability.
	The Office of the Children's Commissioner (OCC) has no officials or chairs covered by the criteria.
	Ofsted and Ofqual are non-ministerial bodies and should be contacted directly for any information.

Driving under Influence

Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  how many people were given multiple custodial sentences for drink driving in each year since 2000;
	(2)  how many people with a conviction for drink driving had previously been caught for the same offence within the last 10 years in each year since 2000;
	(3)  how many people sentenced to a custodial sentence for drink driving had previously been caught for the same offence within the last 10 years in each year since 2000.

Jeremy Wright: The Police National Computer (PNC) came into existence in 2000 and information prior to this is not considered reliable so data before July 2001 is not available. The figures have been drawn from the police's administrative IT system, (PNC) which, as with any large scale recording system, is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the police.
	Drink driving offences presented in the table include the following offences:
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 4(1) Driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs (impairment).
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 5(1)(a) Driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle while having a breath, blood or urine alcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit.
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 7(6) Driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle and failing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen for a laboratory test or two specimens for analysis of breath.
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 4(2) In charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs (impairment).
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 5(1)(b) In charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle while having a breath, blood or urine alcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit.
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 7(6) In charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle and failing without reasonable excuse to provide a for a specimen for a laboratory test or two specimens for analysis of breath.
	Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec. 6(4) Failing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen of breath for a preliminary test.
	Failing to allow specimen of blood to be subjected to laboratory test. Road Traffic Act 1998.
	Driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs (impairment)—drink. Road Traffic Act 1988 S.4(2).
	Driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs (impairment)—drugs. Road Traffic Act 1988 S.4(1)
	Being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle while unfit to drive through drink or drugs, (impairment)—drink. Road Traffic Act 1988 S.4(2)
	Being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle while unfit to drive through drink or drugs (impairment)—drugs. Road Traffic Act 1988 S.4(2)
	PQ 139797
	Table 1 shows the number of offenders given multiple custodial sentences for a drink driving offence in each year, 12 months ending June 2002 to 12 months ending June 2012, in England and Wales.
	
		
			 Table 1: Number of individual offenders given multiple custodial sentences for a drink driving offence in each year, 12 months ending June 2002 to 12 months ending June 2012, England and Wales 
			 Year ending Number of offenders 
			 June 2002 44 
			 June 2003 57 
			 June 2004 60 
			 June 2005 53 
			 June 2006 51 
			 June 2007 47 
			 June 2008 39 
			 June 2009 40 
			 June 2010 21 
			 June 2011 18 
			 June 2012 11 
			 Source: Ministry of Justice 
		
	
	PQ 139799
	Table 2 shows the number of offenders convicted of a drink driving offence during the 12 months ending June for each year, who have previously been convicted of a drink driving offence.
	
		
			 Table 2: Number of offenders in each year convicted for a drink driving offence, who have previously been convicted for a drink driving offence, for the 12 months ending June 2002 to 12 months ending June 2012, England and Wales 
			 Year ending Number of offenders 
			 June 2002 12,204 
			 June 2003 14,463 
			 June 2004 15,964 
			 June 2005 16,637 
			 June 2006 16,749 
			 June 2007 16,849 
			 June 2008 16,917 
			 June 2009 15,631 
			 June 2010 14,418 
			 June 2011 13,031 
			 June 2012 12,867 
			 Source: Ministry of Justice 
		
	
	The number of previous convictions given in Table 2 are based on individuals in each 12 month period and therefore an individual may have been counted more than once if they had been convicted in a different period.
	PQ 139800
	Table 3 shows the number of offenders sentenced to custody for a drink driving offence who had previously been caught for the same offence within the last 10 years in each year, 12 months ending June 2002 to 12 months ending June 2012 in England and Wales.
	
		
			 Table 3: Number of offenders sentenced to custody for a drink driving offence who had previously been caught for the same offence within the last 10 years in each year, 12 months ending June 2002 to 12 months ending June 2012, England and Wales 
			 Year ending Number of offenders 
			 June 2002 1,941 
			 June 2003 1,899 
			 June 2004 1,932 
			 June 2005 1,945 
			 June 2006 1,736 
			 June 2007 1,449 
			 June 2008 1,422 
			 June 2009 1,260 
			 June 2010 1,001 
			 June 2011 776 
			 June 2012 746 
			 Source: Ministry of Justice

Prisons: Television

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners have access to a television in their cells.

Jeremy Wright: Prisoners' eligibility for access to in-cell television in England and Wales is dependent on their status under the Prison Service's Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme. Prison Service Instruction 11/2011 refers, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. The IEP scheme must consist of at least three tiers (basic, standard and enhanced). Access to in-cell television is restricted to those at standard and enhanced levels, is a forfeitable privilege, and prisoners are charged for use.
	Information relating to the number of prisoners who have access to television within their cells is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by manual checking with individual establishments.

Probation

Louise Ellman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what plans he has to ensure that professional standards are maintained following the outsourcing of probation work.

Jeremy Wright: The Ministry of Justice has recently published the consultation paper “Transforming Rehabilitation—a revolution in the way we manage offenders” which sets out our plans for reforming the way in which offenders are rehabilitated in the community.
	Under our proposals, we expect that probation professionals will work in the public, private and voluntary sectors, protecting the public and delivering rehabilitation services using their considerable skills and experience in working with offenders. We are clear that we will maintain this expertise and a strong probation profession.
	Some responses to the earlier consultation paper “Punishment and Reform: effective probation services” suggested the establishment of a professional body or institute to help practitioners maintain high standards of practice. We will look at the most appropriate way of ensuring professional standards are maintained and “Transforming Rehabilitation” asks a specific question in this regard.
	The consultation closes on 22 February 2013 and we will announce further details of our proposals once we have considered responses.

Travel and Subsistence Payments

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many senior officials of his Department's arm's-length bodies are paid on the basis that they are exempt from personally meeting any tax liability in respect of travel and subsistence payments for attending meetings at the offices of the arm's-length body.

Jeremy Wright: The Department's travel and subsistence policies set out the circumstances in which officials may reclaim travel and subsistence expenses. They also set out the circumstances in which the Department will bear the cost of the individual member of staffs own liability to tax.
	It would be a significant exercise to identify the number of senior officials who have made travel and subsistence claims that exempted them from being personally liable for any tax. It would require each individual expenses form to be collated and reviewed, incurring a disproportionate cost.

High Speed 2 Railway Line

William Cash: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the proposed limits of deviation for High Speed 2 cover land subject to private enactments or secondary legislation.

Simon Burns: Limits of deviation have not yet been proposed for High Speed 2, this will be done as part of the hybrid Bill submission. As part of this, land included within the limits of deviation will be checked to determine whether they are subject to any private legislation.

High Speed 2 Railway Line

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 
	(1)  how much capital towards the building of HS2 he expects to raise from local authorities whose areas will benefit from the new line; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  how he will determine which local authorities benefit from the building of HS2 enough to determine that they should contribute to its capital costs;

Simon Burns: The Government intends to offer local authorities, and their public and private sector partners, opportunities to contribute to the HS2 programme so that they may secure valuable benefits for local people and local businesses. The nature of those opportunities, and the contributions made, may take a wide range of forms reflecting varied local circumstances. We do not intend to prejudice the outcome of future discussions and negotiations.

Network Rail

Nicholas Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress Network Rail has made in developing a voluntary transparency code in line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Simon Burns: In June 2012, Network Rail recognised the demand for more of its data and information by launching a voluntary publication scheme, enhancing its transparency and accountability.
	The data and information, which is updated on its website and added to on a quarterly basis, includes:
	information about risk at Network Rail's level crossings
	budget and cost of large infrastructure projects
	a breakdown of staff salaries, by £25,000 bracket, for those earning above £100,000
	agendas and minutes of NR Board meetings.
	There is also an online form allowing members of the public to make suggestions for further disclosure.

Railway Stations: Wales

Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 30 January 2013, Official Report, column 808W, on railway stations, what plans he has to hold discussions with the Welsh Government on the new station fund.

Simon Burns: During the design of the New Stations Fund officials held discussions with the Welsh Government and incorporated a number of their comments into the principles of the Fund. Network Rail (as administrators of the Fund) has also had discussions with the Welsh Government over station proposals. As the bids for funding are developed officials will continue to hold discussions with the Welsh Government and other bidders. The Welsh Government has been invited to attend the Panel that will make recommendations on the bids for funding.

Capital Gains Tax

Rob Wilson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made an assessment of the likely effect on (a) economic growth and (b) the public finances of (i) cutting and (ii) abolishing capital gains tax; and if he will make a statement.

David Gauke: Capital gains tax contributed £4.3 billion in Exchequer receipts in 2011-12. The Government believes that the current capital gains tax regime represents a good balance between raising revenue, reducing the incentives to substitute income for a capital gain and retaining incentives to save and invest.
	Nevertheless, the Government keeps all areas of the tax system under review at all times. Any changes to the tax system are considered and announced by the Chancellor as part of the normal Budget process.

Individual Savings Accounts

James Duddridge: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his announcement in the autumn statement that the Government will consult on expanding the list of qualifying investments for stocks and shares ISAs to include shares traded on small and medium enterprises equity markets, when the consultation will be published; and how long it will last.

Sajid Javid: The Government understands the need to encourage investment in growing businesses, and will shortly publish a written consultation on expanding the list of qualifying investments for stocks and shares ISAs to include shares traded on SME equity markets. Officials have already held a series of meetings with stakeholders since the autumn statement as part of the Government's consultation on this change.
	The Government has published a Tax Consultation Framework which sets out how consultations on tax policy will be carried out. This can be found at
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/consultations/tax-consultation-framework.pdf

Welfare Tax Credits: Birmingham

Jack Dromey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  how many (a) people, (b) people in work and (c) households in (i) Birmingham, Erdington constituency and (ii) Birmingham are in receipt of tax credits; and what the average weekly payment is in each case;
	(2)  how many people in (a) Birmingham, Erdington constituency and (b) Birmingham are in (i) full-time work, (ii) part-time work and (iii) not in paid employment and in receipt of child tax credits.

Sajid Javid: The figures presented here relate to the position as at 1 December 2012. All the figures presented exclude those out-of-work cases where support equivalent to tax credits is provided by DWP through out of work benefits.
	Table 1 shows the number of adults, working adults and households in the two respective regions. A working adult is defined as someone who works at least 16 hours and is within a family eligible for working tax credit, in line with working tax credit rules.
	
		
			 Table 1: Number of adults, working adults and households in Birmingham and Birmingham 
			 Thousand 
			  Birmingham, Erdington constituency Birmingham: local authority 
			 Number of adults 16.4 164.5 
			 Number of adults in work 8.6 79.3 
		
	
	
		
			 Number of households 12.0 111.7 
		
	
	Tax credits are paid at a household level. Average weekly entitlement can therefore only be provided for households. The average weekly payment for the two respective regions is:
	Birmingham, Erdington: £125
	Birmingham LA: £135
	Table 2 shows the number of adults in full-time work, part-time work as well as the number of adults not in work.
	There is no standard definition of full-time and part-time work. These have been defined to be consistent with tax credits hour's thresholds.
	
		
			 Table 2: Number of full-time, part-time, and out of work adults in Birmingham and Birmingham, Erdington 
			 Thousand 
			  Birmingham, Erdington constituency Birmingham local authority 
			 Number of adults in full-time work (working 30 hours p/w or more) 5.6 51.2 
			 Number of adults in part-time work (working 16 to 29 hours p/w) 3.0 30.0 
			 Number of adults who are out of work or working less than 16 hours in receipt of CTC 7.5 81.0